Should we change the rating system, or leave it as it is?

squishyg wrote:if we are to have a ratings system at all, let it reflect something. i like the idea of people automatically getting an average rating if no other one is left. i vote for average being 3, because that's what its supposed to be already. i don't care for the negative numbers idea; if we're going to be leaving ratings, it should be as constructive criticism.

but its an agreed opinion by the majority of people that 4.7 is the average rating now

so ...whats wrong with that? i've already explained why no ratings resulting in the average rating is a bad idea im not gonna say it again even though i will because i know someone is going to make me ....

ccatman wrote:but its an agreed opinion by the majority of people that 4.7 is the average rating now

It's not an opinion, it's a fact.

so ...whats wrong with that? i've already explained why no ratings resulting in the average rating is a bad idea im not gonna say it again even though i will because i know someone is going to make me ....

Here are the actual reasons you gave why it's a bad idea, and here are the refutations (some of which you've not even responded to):

ccatman wrote:and come on seriously people who actually deserve 5.0 ratings right now will not get it ever because with this new system you are making it imposible to get the highest rating posible because there will ALWAYS be people who never rate its just unfair and stupid to some of the people who actually care about the ratings

Refutation: No one deserves a 5.0 rating. Some people do deserve a high rating because they are truly outstanding, and their ratings will reflect that. Most other people, who are more or less average, will have an average rating. Makes sense to me.

ccatman wrote:i have that message sitting there right now i've had it up to 200 people and i can tell you that those 200 people dont all deserve that 0 star rating

Refutation: You rate people who you see as above or below average. If you choose not to rate a person, it implies that you think that they're average. The only other explanation is that you're too lazy to rate them - but then how can you claim you actually care about the ratings system?

ccatman wrote:right now that can only effect your rating about .1-.2 difference and it does effect some people but theres nothing that can be done about that with the new system the scaling will be much different and it will become more dependent on the people you play

Refutation: Entirely incorrect. In the new system, your rating is a lot less dependent on the people you play, because there will be a bunch of zeros averaging out any biased or weird ratings you receive.

If a player does not wish to leave a rating for his opponents after a match, it counts as a 0 or "average" rating.

This is what "buys" my vote. It should be so that every time a game a game is completed and no judgement is made a 3.0 rating should be given for that game, indtead of it being skipped. it would create a much fairer system. if this simple rule was implemented no frther change would be necessary,

its almost like your not reading anything im sayingwhy are you so set on the only posible reason for not rating someone is because they are an average player? because i have told you over and over again that that is bs and not true at all YOUR RATING IS ALWAYS DEPENDENT ON WHO YOU PLAY GET OVER IT

ccatman wrote:its almost like your not reading anything im sayingwhy are you so set on the only posible reason for not rating someone is because they are an average player? because i have told you over and over again that that is bs and not true at all

I promise you I'm reading what you're saying, but this last statement implies that you aren't reading what I am saying. Please read this part of my post again:

Metsfanmax wrote:Refutation: You rate people who you see as above or below average. If you choose not to rate a person, it implies that you think that they're average. The only other explanation is that you're too lazy to rate them - but then how can you claim you actually care about the ratings system?

ccatman wrote:its almost like your not reading anything im sayingwhy are you so set on the only posible reason for not rating someone is because they are an average player? because i have told you over and over again that that is bs and not true at all

I promise you I'm reading what you're saying, but this last statement implies that you aren't reading what I am saying. Please read this part of my post again:

Metsfanmax wrote:Refutation: You rate people who you see as above or below average. If you choose not to rate a person, it implies that you think that they're average. The only other explanation is that you're too lazy to rate them - but then how can you claim you actually care about the ratings system?

yes once again and thank you for this you are only prooving me correctdo you realize how many lazy people there are? there are MANY people like me who will not rate because they just dont feel like it and because of that having those ratings go to 0 is unfair please read more clearly.....you need to understand what the majority thinks

ccatman wrote:yes once again and thank you for this you are only prooving me correctdo you realize how many lazy people there are? there are MANY people like me who will not rate because they just dont feel like it and because of that having those ratings go to 0 is unfair please read more clearly.....you need to understand what the majority thinks

I'm trying to make a point here, that you don't seem to be getting. If you don't care enough about the ratings system to take the time to give people ratings when they deserve them, then you can't legitimately be upset when that system changes to something that reflects your lack of care. This system is designed to fix precisely this problem. If people are too lazy to rate, then they obviously don't care about the quality of the ratings system that much, and thus they shouldn't complain when their no-rates are turned into zeros. However, it is still true in any event that the extraordinary people will be rated as such, so the good players will still come out. All you do by failing to rank the players closer to the middle is make it harder to get away from zero. I would hope that this system would force you to rate more, because you clearly don't want that to happen.

Your whole argument is a facade. If you claim that you care about the quality of the ratings but aren't willing to do your part to make the system better by giving good ratings to your opponents, then you're lying to yourself and everyone else.

ccatman wrote:yes once again and thank you for this you are only prooving me correctdo you realize how many lazy people there are? there are MANY people like me who will not rate because they just dont feel like it and because of that having those ratings go to 0 is unfair please read more clearly.....you need to understand what the majority thinks

I'm trying to make a point here, that you don't seem to be getting. If you don't care enough about the ratings system to take the time to give people ratings when they deserve them, then you can't legitimately be upset when that system changes to something that reflects your lack of care. This system is designed to fix precisely this problem. If people are too lazy to rate, then they obviously don't care about the quality of the ratings system that much, and thus they shouldn't complain when their no-rates are turned into zeros. However, it is still true in any event that the extraordinary people will be rated as such, so the good players will still come out. All you do by failing to rank the players closer to the middle is make it harder to get away from zero. I would hope that this system would force you to rate more, because you clearly don't want that to happen.

Your whole argument is a facade. If you claim that you care about the quality of the ratings but aren't willing to do your part to make the system better by giving good ratings to your opponents, then you're lying to yourself and everyone else.

still need glasses i see....ok i do care about my own rating very much and that it is not garbage i do not care about other peoples ratings in any way! now all these lazy people are taking MY rating down and i dont like it simple as that and you know im still not gonna give out ratings because like i said i do not care about other peoples ratings maybe if a friend asks i will give it but if a random person asks i dont care its not my ratingand like i said there are many people who are like this and it creates a problem

ccatman wrote:still need glasses i see....ok i do care about my own rating very much and that it is not garbage i do not care about other peoples ratings in any way! now all these lazy people are taking MY rating down and i dont like it simple as that and you know im still not gonna give out ratings because like i said i do not care about other peoples ratings maybe if a friend asks i will give it but if a random person asks i dont care its not my ratingand like i said there are many people who are like this and it creates a problem

I'm not even going to continue arguing with you. This makes it abundantly clear that you don't care about the ratings system as a whole - you only want to protect your average 4.7 rating from turning into an average 0 rating (?). I hope that there aren't many others like you, but if there are, at least this system will help to fix some of those issues.

ccatman wrote:still need glasses i see....ok i do care about my own rating very much and that it is not garbage i do not care about other peoples ratings in any way! now all these lazy people are taking MY rating down and i dont like it simple as that and you know im still not gonna give out ratings because like i said i do not care about other peoples ratings maybe if a friend asks i will give it but if a random person asks i dont care its not my ratingand like i said there are many people who are like this and it creates a problem

I'm not even going to continue arguing with you. This makes it abundantly clear that you don't care about the ratings system as a whole - you only want to protect your average 4.7 rating from turning into an average 0 rating (?). I hope that there aren't many others like you, but if there are, at least this system will help to fix some of those issues.

sorry to tell you that yes there are and once again sorry to tell you 0 will not become the new average rating if you want it to be or not its as simple as that get it through your thick headand im not trying to protect my 4.7 rating im trying to protect the mods from hell because this will create more problems for them if they were to add this system

Last edited by ccatman on Fri Oct 08, 2010 10:00 pm, edited 2 times in total.

ccatman wrote:sorry to tell you that yes there are and once again sorry to tell you 0 will not become the new average rating if you want it to be or not its as simple as that get it through your thick head

Okay, this I have to respond to. Basic math implies that 0 will be the new average rating, at the very most to within plus or minus 0.1. I did the math earlier on in the thread. Thick head or not, I do understand mathematics fairly well, and this isn't even a piece of math that requires much intelligence. Unless the new system causes people to rate about 10 times higher than the current rate of, oh I don't know, 5%, 0 will be the new average. Notice that no one else has made the argument you're making, and there's a reason...

ccatman wrote:sorry to tell you that yes there are and once again sorry to tell you 0 will not become the new average rating if you want it to be or not its as simple as that get it through your thick head

Okay, this I have to respond to. Basic math implies that 0 will be the new average rating, at the very most to within plus or minus 0.1. I did the math earlier on in the thread. Thick head or not, I do understand mathematics fairly well, and this isn't even a piece of math that requires much intelligence. Unless the new system causes people to rate about 10 times higher than the current rate of, oh I don't know, 5%, 0 will be the new average. Notice that no one else has made the argument you're making, and there's a reason...

well sorry to hear you dont know basic math either because whatever it is SUPPOSE to be is not reality this new system isnt going to magically make people rate 0's on people they will still rate 2's if they decide to rate seriously stop it your just making a fool of yoruself i've replied the same way to all your comments and you are just replying the same way to me and it is very clear you do not know what your talking about what makes you think people will decide to rate 0 on average players? all it takes is a friendly chat in the chat box to get all 2stars or an amazing play will get you the 2 stars or even just saying gl and gg at the end if you win or lose

ccatman wrote:what makes you think people will decide to rate 0 on average players? all it takes is a friendly chat in the chat box to get all 2stars or an amazing play will get you the 2 stars or even just saying gl and gg at the end if you win or lose

It's a very simple argument. Let's say the current percentage of players who give me ratings is 10%, and they give me all 5s. Let's assume that with the new change the percentage of opponents who rate me does not increase substantially, and then I play against 1000 people (so I get 100 5-star ratings). In the old system, my rating is 5.0. In the new one, my rating is 3.2 out of 5 (equivalently, 0.2 on the scale from -2 to 2). I'm not saying that people will suddenly give zero ratings intentionally. I'm saying the automatically given zero ratings will bring it all back towards the mean.

ccatman wrote:what makes you think people will decide to rate 0 on average players? all it takes is a friendly chat in the chat box to get all 2stars or an amazing play will get you the 2 stars or even just saying gl and gg at the end if you win or lose

It's a very simple argument. Let's say the current percentage of players who give me ratings is 10%, and they give me all 5s. Let's assume that with the new change the percentage of opponents who rate me does not increase substantially, and then I play against 1000 people (so I get 100 5-star ratings). In the old system, my rating is 5.0. In the new one, my rating is 3.2 out of 5 (equivalently, 0.2 on the scale from -2 to 2). I'm not saying that people will suddenly give zero ratings intentionally. I'm saying the automatically given zero ratings will bring it all back towards the mean.

i will tell you what you just said in short words then explain it for you this rating system is bad idea because too many people dont ratefirst of all i ask why you want this so dependent on people not rating? if you were to get 10% ratings and 5*'s from everyone you clearly are a good player and deserve more than a 3.2 those 900 people who didnt rate you chose not to rate you because they are lazy and dont care about the rating system not because you were just an ordinary player and with so many people not rating you might get a lot of people around the average rating but you will not get people who are above average at what is now 4.0 and what could be 1.0 later and you will not get anyone near 5.0 and i said before that with this new system noone will get a perfect rating and there are people who deserve them if you think so or not this system will not allow you to go that high. and another thing why do you have a problem with 4.7 being the average rating now?what is so bad about that?

ccatman wrote:first of all i ask why you want this so dependent on people not rating? if you were to get 10% ratings and 5*'s from everyone you clearly are a good player and deserve more than a 3.2

Flat-out false. As you alluded to in your above post, saying "gl" and "gg" is often enough to get you five stars. That in no way indicates that you are a good player.

those 900 people who didnt rate you chose not to rate you because they are lazy and dont care about the rating system not because you were just an ordinary player and with so many people not rating you might get a lot of people around the average rating

Yes, that's the idea. Most of the player base should be close to the average. That's the definition of average.

but you will not get people who are above average at what is now 4.0 and what could be 1.0 later and you will not get anyone near 5.0 and i said before that with this new system noone will get a perfect rating and there are people who deserve them if you think so or not this system will not allow you to go that high.

Even if that's true, so what? There are roughly 80% out of the rating scores possible, that basically no one has now (i.e. any score from 1.0 up to 4.0). The system won't get worse.

and another thing why do you have a problem with 4.7 being the average rating now?what is so bad about that?

I find it incredibly annoying, because the average rating should be in the center of the distribution. That's actually my only real motivation here.

ccatman wrote:first of all i ask why you want this so dependent on people not rating? if you were to get 10% ratings and 5*'s from everyone you clearly are a good player and deserve more than a 3.2

Flat-out false. As you alluded to in your above post, saying "gl" and "gg" is often enough to get you five stars. That in no way indicates that you are a good player.

those 900 people who didnt rate you chose not to rate you because they are lazy and dont care about the rating system not because you were just an ordinary player and with so many people not rating you might get a lot of people around the average rating

Yes, that's the idea. Most of the player base should be close to the average. That's the definition of average.

but you will not get people who are above average at what is now 4.0 and what could be 1.0 later and you will not get anyone near 5.0 and i said before that with this new system noone will get a perfect rating and there are people who deserve them if you think so or not this system will not allow you to go that high.

Even if that's true, so what? There are roughly 80% out of the rating scores possible, that basically no one has now (i.e. any score from 1.0 up to 4.0). The system won't get worse.

and another thing why do you have a problem with 4.7 being the average rating now?what is so bad about that?

I find it incredibly annoying, because the average rating should be in the center of the distribution. That's actually my only real motivation here.

the average is only the mean of everyone it does not mean most of the people are average it just means when you add up all the players and divide it that number you get is the average this in no way means that the majority of people are average players say if you have 10 numbers between 1-5 you get 1,2,2,3,4,4,4,4,4,5,5 the average there is 3.8 and 3.8 and 3.0 are not the same number clearly

ccatman wrote:the average is only the mean of everyone it does not mean most of the people are average it just means when you add up all the players and divide it that number you get is the average this in no way means that the majority of people are average players say if you have 10 numbers between 1-5 you get 1,2,2,3,4,4,4,4,4,5,5 the average there is 3.8 and 3.8 and 3.0 are not the same number clearly

Obviously you can find an example of a set of numbers where the average isn't what you want it to be. My whole point is that I believe that the average rating ought to be in the center of the rating distribution. That assumption is the basis of pretty much all of statistics, and besides, I just think it's silly to have a 5 point rating scale and have all the ratings stuck between 4.5 and 5.0.

ccatman wrote:the average is only the mean of everyone it does not mean most of the people are average it just means when you add up all the players and divide it that number you get is the average this in no way means that the majority of people are average players say if you have 10 numbers between 1-5 you get 1,2,2,3,4,4,4,4,4,5,5 the average there is 3.8 and 3.8 and 3.0 are not the same number clearly

Obviously you can find an example of a set of numbers where the average isn't what you want it to be. My whole point is that I believe that the average rating ought to be in the center of the rating distribution. That assumption is the basis of pretty much all of statistics, and besides, I just think it's silly to have a 5 point rating scale and have all the ratings stuck between 4.5 and 5.0.

i agree with you in the sense that having it between 4.5-5.0 is silly but like i said most people understand who is what kind of player 4.7-4.8 is a good sized difference so is 4.8-4.9 4.5 is actually considered somewhat lowbut this new system honestly is only making it more dependent on who you play against and if they are lazy or not(did i say that before????) and really if you play a lot of speed games your rating will be hurt if you play a lot of private team games against clans or maybe in trourneys you will have a high rating still with this new system if you are a low rank or someone who joins a lot off games with them most of them probaly wont rate you or care to rate you if your in 8 player games all the time noone is going to look at how each person plays and then rate them so there solution is dont rate at all

TheForgivenOne wrote:A lack of ratings won't tell much either So he has a 0.1 rating. Maybe he played 100 games, and only got rated by 20 players, and the rest didn't. That wouldn't accurately portray how skilled the opponent is.

I believe the point of half this thread is that the proposed system cannot be any worse than the current system, but has the potential to be better. So what's the harm in trying it?

It can be worse, and likely will. The way people do or do not rate will not change, but the numbers between bad and great will get closer together so that they are indistinguishable. It's a lot easier to see that "5" is probably better than "4" than it would be to see that "0.2" is better than "0.1"

Whatever. You people do whatever you want. I will continue to rate people as described in the Instructions. I refuse to subscribe to the "everybody wins" or "5 stars as default" mindset. If you don't impress me in a match, then you're average, and you deserve three stars.

temporos wrote:Whatever. You people do whatever you want. I will continue to rate people as described in the Instructions. I refuse to subscribe to the "everybody wins" or "5 stars as default" mindset. If you don't impress me in a match, then you're average, and you deserve three stars.

I'm done with this flame war.

see the problem with rating like that and the reason people dont do it mainly is because you dont have enough evidence to tell if someone is a good average or bad player sometimes a move might stick out that effects your game and you will give a good or bad rating because of that move but you would have to study all their moves to give them an accurate rating and another thing is you have to be good yourself in order to tell if they are playing good or not(also a reason why the rating system will always be flawed). and i doubt anyone refreshes their page 24/7 and clicks on a game when they see someone taking a turn just to watch to see if they are playing good or notme personally i mostly only rate people if i've played with them many times and even then i dont always rate them and again me personally i dont care how you rate but i just want to let you know why your rating style is bad (in my opinion) and why people are going to get mad at you for rating them the way you do